ian1964 10,416 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 The planned reconstruction of Scottish football has created many column inches of newspaper editorial and media coverage, much of which has been sensational, some of which has been sensible and as per usual much of which has been nonsense. We would therefore like to clarify our stance on these new proposals following the debate which took place at Hampden on 28th March. Our previous meetings with our SFL colleagues regarding these proposals had been positive. We all felt that change was required and the time was upon us to deliver a new, more collective approach to the administration of our game. The SFL had put together a package of changes which had been presented to the SPL; the SPL agreed that changed was required but countered with their own proposal. This new SPL package was debated and although it was far from a perfect solution it did deliver the key areas for change: 1 Governing Body Redistribution of finance Healthy promotion, relegation and play-off system Pyramid system allowing for future growth. A vote was taken at a previous meeting and the result was 28-1 in favour of progressing the SPL Package to the next stage. We reconvened on Thursday to further discuss the details of the planned changes. Governance issues, dueâ??diligence problems and timescales were all covered. These areas, we agree are incredibly important and every care should be taken to ensure that all parties are safeguarded and we create a governing body not just for the short-term but for our long term future. The main concern from some of the SFL members was the timescale factor which was discussed at length. However the end result of this over-zealous procrastination now has the potential to de-rail all our previous progress and create divisions when we had unanimity. At the end of our meeting we again took an indicative â??voteâ? for the Implementation of the SPL package at the beginning of next season. This time the result was 14/14. The main reason given for the change in mind of majority of clubs was the timescale. We accept the rational and agree that timescales are difficult and in other circumstances many of the reasons against change would be compelling. Indeed in business we would not consider a take it or leave it proposal as has been presented by the SPL, but the alternatives are grim. Clubs in the 2nd/3rd Division have nothing to gain financially in the short term from â??Reconstructionâ?, but we, as a club must look at the wider picture and judge what is best for the future of our national game. If we risk a situation whereby the 1st Division Clubs move to join the SPL then it would spell disaster and the opportunity to form one association to drive Scottish Football forward would be lost. The clubs that would remain would become a forgotten entity by media, sponsors and fans alike and stifle ambitious clubs such as ourselves in making progress up the ladder. Therefore, on behalf of the board of Peterhead Football Club we would like to urge Neil Doncaster and David Longmuir to meet further to discuss lingering doubts and allay the doubts of those members who are concerned over the timescale of these proposals. We would also like to urge our fellow members of the SFL who voted against the reconstruction and unified governing body plans to please reconsider their position of requesting a further season of deliberations. In the past year our leadership within the SFL over the Rangers saga and league reconstruction has been faultless, now is the time to stand together and take this opportunity to revitalise our game and not give the SPL the option of walking away from these proposals due to a divided SFL and all the negative repercussions that will follow from that. Major change and especially football change, require a leap of faith by all parties concerned, status quo is not an option beyond this season if we are to bring excitement and competition back to our game Chairman Rodger Morrison Vice-Chairman Ian Grant http://www.peterheadfc.com/news/605-club-statement-league-reconstruction 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,416 Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 Here we go again with this 'opportunity'!,what opportunity are we speaking of?,milking the cash cow that is Rangers?. ''Clubs in the 2nd/3rd Division have nothing to gain financially in the short term from “Reconstruction”, that is a blatant lie! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alfiebass Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Peterhead had it in their heads before a ball was kicked this season that they would either win the league or be promoted via the play offs. They have had this dream wrecked by the fact that Rangers were always going to be odds on to win the league despite the barriers that had been put in our way. The reconstruction plan that is on offer will never offer any help to a club such as Peterhead, therefore I can only assume their stance id based on wanting another couple of home games against Rangers while hindering their climb back to the top. After their on the pitch behaviour this season, which bordered on outright assault on certain players I would hope that if we do have to face this club again next term that no Rangers fans will give them any help by attending their sad little ground. Basically Peterhead equals another sad little club who want money for contributing nothing to the game. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Yet again the magical playoffs appear , where exactly do they fit into this 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,416 Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 Peterhead had it in their heads before a ball was kicked this season that they would either win the league or be promoted via the play offs. They have had this dream wrecked by the fact that Rangers were always going to be odds on to win the league despite the barriers that had been put in our way. The reconstruction plan that is on offer will never offer any help to a club such as Peterhead, therefore I can only assume their stance id based on wanting another couple of home games against Rangers while hindering their climb back to the top. After their on the pitch behaviour this season, which bordered on outright assault on certain players I would hope that if we do have to face this club again next term that no Rangers fans will give them any help by attending their sad little ground. Basically Peterhead equals another sad little club who want money for contributing nothing to the game. You just know that won't happen,right?. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Davison 0 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 A few months back, the Peterhead manager was quoted as saying that supporters should get their money refunded if rules were changed during the season. Maybe I am being cynical but it may be that his chairman and vice-chairman would see things differently, if Peterhead had been in the hunt for promotion. The paying public have indicated that the new proposals are unpopular and people like the spokesmen from Peterhead, Falkirk and Hamilton might just find that the some of the supporters that they presently have might not agree with their stance. Attendance figures in the SPL are not good and the issue of where the SPL are going to find the money to release funds remains a mystery to many. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,416 Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 There's nothing wrong in doing what is best for your club,but at least be honest about it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,258 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 There's nothing wrong in doing what is best for your club,but at least be honest about it. Although you must be prepared to accept the consequences for that action if it impacts on others 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djbroxybear 0 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 The way Doncaster and his cohorts are trying to force this through via threats and bullying is as sinister as it is appalling. Is there anybody at all within the game prepared to stand up to him and ask directly: why? Why now or never? Why the almighty rush? The dishonestly and strong arm tactics are disgusting. Maybe someone in the media could grew a set and make an issue of this? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,416 Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 Is there not legal implications involved if this gets pushed through? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.